but the second John he mentions after an interval
([Greek: diasteilas ton logon]), and places among others outside
the number of the Apostles, putting Aristion before him, and he
distinctly calls him an 'elder;' so that by these facts the account
of those is proved to be true who have stated that two persons in
Asia had the same name, and that there were two tombs in Ephesus,
each of which, even to the present time, bears the name of John.

Then, after speculating on the possibility that this second John was the
author of the Apocalypse, he continues:--

Papias avows that he has received the sayings of the Apostles from
those who had been their followers ([Greek: ton autois
parekolouthekoton]), but says that he himself was an immediate
hearer of Aristion and the Elder John. Certainly he mentions them
many times in his writings, and records their traditions.

The justice of this criticism has been disputed by many recent writers,
who maintain that the same John, the son of Zebedee, is meant in both
passages. But I cannot myself doubt that Eusebius was right in his
interpretation, and I am glad for once to find myself entirely agreed
with the author of _Supernatural Religion_. It will be observed that
John is the only name mentioned twice, and that at its second occurrence
the person bearing it is distinguished as the 'elder' or 'presbyter,'
this designation being put in an emphatic position before the proper
name. We must therefore accept the distinction between John the Apostle
and John the Presbyter, though the concession may not be free from
inconvenience, as introducing an element of possible confusion.

But it does not therefore follow that the statement of Irenaeus was
incorrect. Though this passage in the preface of Papias lends no support
to the belief that he was a personal disciple of John the son of
Zebedee, yet it is quite consistent with such a belief. Irenaeus does
not state that he derived his knowledge from this preface, or indeed
from any part of the work. Having listened again and again to Polycarp
while describing the sayings and doings of John the Apostle [144:1], he
had other sources of information which were closed to Eusebius. Nor
indeed is there any chronological or other difficulty in supposing that
he may have derived the fact from direct intercourse with Papias
himself. But the possibility still remains that he was guilty of this
confusi